Rumors have swirled for years that Apple had its sights on revolutionizing how people interact with their TVs. Soon, that dream may become a reality. The Wall Street Journal reports that Apple and Comcast are in talks regarding a new streaming service that bypasses the Web in order to assure smooth delivery of content.

Although the latest talks are in the early stages, the recent emergence of Comcast as the dominant cable and Internet provider in the US makes the company an obvious choice to partner with Apple.

Could Comcast and Apple join forces to revolutionize how content gets to subscribers' TVs?

If a deal goes through, the likely result will be an Apple-branded set-top box that provides an enhanced, cloud-based on-demand experience. There are numerous details that need to be worked out, including whether or not Comcast customers would sign into the service using an Apple ID.

The crux of the plan involves using Comcast's cable-TV pipeline instead of the public Internet to deliver content. A major benefit is that the service should provide smooth, uninterrupted streaming.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the two companies are nowhere near a final agreement, but the talks are taking place.

Quote:

"The discussions between the world's most valuable company and the nation's largest cable provider are still in early stages and many hurdles remain. But the deal, if sealed, would mark a new level of cooperation and integration between a technology company and cable provider to modernize TV viewing." source: Wall Street Journal

I'm already an iTunes user, and I cut the cable cord years ago, yet this idea appeals to me—especially if it somehow incorporates live sports a la carte. I take the mere existence of these talks as a clear sign of Comcast's growing influence, as well as Apple's desire to expand its reach.

Quote:

"Under the plan Apple proposed to Comcast, Apple's video streams would be treated as a "managed service" traveling in Internet protocol format—similar to cable video-on-demand or phone service. Those services travel on a special portion of the cable pipe that is separate from the more congested portion reserved for public Internet access." source: Wall Street Journal

If Comcast offers a service to rival traditional cable in a partnership with Apple, would you switch?

Whoever is able to crack the live sports nut will be the champion. I've been lobbying all my contacts at Mediacom (we can't even get Comcast here anyway) to strike a deal with ESPN that allows Mediacom internet subscribers who don't have cable the ability to subscribe to the WatchESPN app only. I'd pay $25 a month just for that streaming access to the ESPN family of channels.

NFL Sunday Ticket will be the big one, though. DirecTV has built their business on that, which is obvious based on what they're paying for it. To have exclusivity on that has given them a strong advantage over the competition.

If anyone has the coin to bid the NFL away from DirecTV, it's Apple.

If Apple ponies up for that, think of the different packaging capabilities for sports program. You could get the Big 12 Network and see all their games, or the Northern California package with all bay area teams from all sports.

Sports programming could be broken down and people would pay a premium for their teams if they could avoid having to pay for what they don't want. I'm a cord cutter, and I love live sports. By not having cable I'm saving $100+ a month. I'd happily pay $250/year for the Big 12 package and $350 for the NFL Sunday Ticket. As long as I don't have to pay for soccer, or two guys having a beer and playing catch, I'm in.

Just being able to buy your set-top box, for a reasonable cost would be advantageous if Apple actually achieves this. The rent box charges on one's bill is nuts. How about that HD fee Comcast adds that doesn't make sense since DTV conversion has long past.

Its not like it will be any cheaper. They will find a way to make you pay the same or more. Also comcast and apple together sounds like bad news.

Most probably would use the AppleTV via WiFi, so that you don't need to rely on the climbing under the house or running coax lines outside the house. All you need is a cable entry point connected to a cable modem that has built in WiFi router like they provide or use your DOCSYS 3.0 cable modem with a Airport Express or Extreme. It also has a 100 base Ethernet port for extended home network layouts.

The TWC TV interface is just a app that you authenticate into that gives you access. Comcast has something like this with Xfinity, but they are buying TWC, so why not make use of it?

The security to which channels you have accessed would be tied to the account you use. Guessing Comcast will insist in a email account/password for this separate from a AppleID. Certainly evolving itself away from the local coax to IP is the way to go for a home owner. Since a lot of Infinity is VOD, less requirement to DVR, but probably some box could add that if needed.

IMHO, I don't think the cost of the AppleTV will change radically as Apple sells this to more then Comcast, but it will be interesting to see if they make a bit more custom version for Comcast usage or not.

Most probably would use the AppleTV via WiFi, so that you don't need to rely on the climbing under the house or running coax lines outside the house. All you need is a cable entry point connected to a cable modem that has built in WiFi router like they provide or use your DOCSYS 3.0 cable modem with a Airport Express or Extreme. It also has a 100 base Ethernet port for extended home network layouts.

I think it makes sense to replace cable boxes and satellite receivers with ethernet connected devices. I have a roku ,apple tv, and hopper at the moment. I just hope they come up with a better way than having to add each channel individually and verify your account. Also some of the stations available on roku don't have the same stuff as you can record from the full service. Can you get something like hbo through the xfinity channel without having to add other stuff? I like the on demand idea and streaming but politics and getting everyone to agree on something holds back progress.

Just being able to buy your set-top box, for a reasonable cost would be advantageous if Apple actually achieves this. The rent box charges on one's bill is nuts. How about that HD fee Comcast adds that doesn't make sense since DTV conversion has long past.

'Apple' and 'Reasonable Cost' should never appear in the same sentence. Add ComCast to the mix and you're definitely gonna pay.

How are you a cable cutter if you commit to a cable service's dedicated (as in fully controlled by Comcast) service?

Apple is not exactly known for being open to new ideas from customers, or for low cost or for reaching out to other companies / providers, etc. Their mode of operation is that they know what is good for you and you will go along.

So adding the stellar Comcast service and customer support to Apple's desire to tightly control things is not a good combination.

I'd love an a la carte service for everything - sports, etc. without Apple and Comcast regulating what I can and can't have. I'm waiting for HBO to free itself from the cable shackles, Amazon and Netflix already are, and provide good programming and movies.

Why take a step backwards and run to a Comcast / Apple exclusive setup? Doesn't make sense to me.

Exactly. Pay more up front, have fewer problems, upgrade less frequently. It all evens out, if not advantage going to Apple.

It's weird that I feel like I need to apologize to some people. I've just had a very good experience with them as a company. They once replaced a dead PSU in my Mac Pro Tower free of charge 3 years out of warranty just because I found one tiny sentence on their website saying they'd look at some items on a case by case basis. I had them overnight a computer at no extra charge so I could get a job done once. I've only had maybe two or three major issues in all those years and when I did, they really came to bat. Until that changes for me, it'd be weird for me to say screw 'em because they charge more for a RAM upgrade. (Which I never do through them anyway.)

And for better or for worse, their products hold value better. Maybe not the whole difference of cost but I always get a few hundred bucks back when I update to something else. Again, that's part of what I buy into.

It's weird that I feel like I need to apologize to some people. I've just had a very good experience with them as a company. They once replaced a dead PSU in my Mac Pro Tower free of charge 3 years out of warranty just because I found one tiny sentence on their website saying they'd look at some items on a case by case basis. I had them overnight a computer at no extra charge so I could get a job done once. I've only had maybe two or three major issues in all those years and when I did, they really came to bat. Until that changes for me, it'd be weird for me to say screw 'em because they charge more for a RAM upgrade. (Which I never do through them anyway.)

Ah well.

Yeah, before 2004, I was a Windows guy all the way, I couldn't understand why people would pay more for a Mac because of a pretty box.

Then I spent 7 hours on a phone support conference call with Boxx and Windows, trying to troubleshoot a weird issue with my main workstation. At the end of the day, neither could figure out what was going on and refunded me the charges for the calls. I completely rebuilt the machine, put in a clean hard drive and installed Windows on it clean. Two weeks later I had the same issue, and this was on a machine that was only connected to the internet for updates, other than that it was completely offline.

I was at my wit's end, so I ordered a PowerMac. I have owned Macs ever since. I make my living off my computer, and I can't recall ever having any measurable down time because of my Mac, where my PCs I could lose multiple days at a time, not to mention the whole 'starting large projects from scratch' time lost.

If people use PCs and enjoy them, that's fantastic - keep using them. If they are able to make a living using them, that's great. But what it comes down to is that I need a powerful workstation, and I had been through homebuilt PCs, HPs, Alienwares, and what ended up being a $3500 Boxx machine, and none of them were as powerful or stable as the $1800 stock PowerMac I started out with, and none lasted as long as any of the Macs I've had since then.

I'm a Mac. You might be a PC. We don't have to argue about it. Use what you want, I'll use what I want. Just like Comcast, one company does not need to have 100% of the market share.

But we're off topic. I love my Apple ecosystem, from the AppleTV to my iOS devices and my various Macs, they all work well together and that's all I ask.

'Apple' and 'Reasonable Cost' should never appear in the same sentence. Add ComCast to the mix and you're definitely gonna pay.

I was referring to the AppleTV cost/functionality not the whole Apple ecosystem.

For a $99 device which typically sells for less, its GUI is first rate, has recently had numerous channels added. Can be used for either Airport Audio or Airport Mirroring of your computer display if you are using recent mac computer and OS. It offers HDMI output without any handshake issues, and has a optical output for legacy AVRs for example.

So when I say I would like to see all those Pace/Scientific Altanta/RCA/Motrorolla set-top boxes that you can't buy only rent for $$ each month, go the way of the dinosaur and get replaced with a AppleTV, hell yes that's a reasonable proposition IMHO.

I can see this being a benefit to the consumer if it allows us to subscribe to specific shows or channels...we can tailor our service specifically to our interests and budget...it would also increase competition for our viewing so we arent paying for channels that we have no interest in....

Apple TV seems to offer a suite of services, so you buy the whole thing at once, not a la carte, as you (and I) would want. Comcast doesn't allow much a la carte either (Premium services are, but in addition to the rest).

Some services, like HBO Go require an existing HBO subscription from somewhere, I would expect.

As for sports, the NFL is locked up by the networks or DirecTV, Soccer by several services, most aggressively by NBC / Espn, You have the NBA also locked down for years and the same for Formula One, NASCAR, etc.

Soccer, as an example is being aggressively streamed by NBC - for them the best thing would be to bypass the cable services entirely and offer it to the highest bidders when its cable arrangements are done.

The Apple TV device is 99, but the chromecast device is 35, the new Roku stick will hit around that, so the competition is coming in at a third of the price, and a much smaller form factor.

The GUI may be great, but it seems a step behind technically. In this configuration, it would also lock you in to Comcast and Apple.

... Apple and Comcast are in talks regarding a new streaming service that bypasses the Web in order to assure smooth delivery of content.

For me, it would have to be smooth delivery of high quality content. Now, I have 17594/1092 (kbps) internet service from my phone company, but the video is either not high quality (i.e., not good enough for a good HD TV picture), or it is not smooth. Internet service in my area over cable is fast enough, I hear from other users, but it is not smooth -- trying to watch a video, there are timeouts.

So how can Apple-Comcast do this magical thing? How can they assure smooth delivery of (high quality) video content? (Are they going to lay optical fiber cable to my house? Ha. I don't think so.)

I do get smooth delivery of fairly high content of hundreds of HD TV channels simultaneously, now, by DirecTV satellite. How can Apple-Comcast do better than that? What is the point of what they are thinking of doing? I don't get it.

For me, it would have to be smooth delivery of high quality content. Now, I have 17594/1092 (kbps) internet service from my phone company, but the video is either not high quality (i.e., not good enough for a good HD TV picture), or it is not smooth. Internet service in my area over cable is fast enough, I hear from other users, but it is not smooth -- trying to watch a video, there are timeouts.

So how can Apple-Comcast do this magical thing? How can they assure smooth delivery of (high quality) video content? (Are they going to lay optical fiber cable to my house? Ha. I don't think so.)

I do get smooth delivery of fairly high content of hundreds of HD TV channels simultaneously, now, by DirecTV satellite. How can Apple-Comcast do better than that? What is the point of what they are thinking of doing? I don't get it.

As the original post said, it will "bypass" the web. Basically, there will be capacity over the wire dedicated to the service, not just over the last mile cable lines (what they call a "specialized service") but also between Apple and Comcast's networks.

Look up recent news regarding Cogent, Netflix, and Comcast or news about Level 3 and Comcast from a few years back. It will detail some of the spats between those companies when it comes to peering agreements, and how they result in poor performance in Netflix, despite the fact that consumers are paying for connections to the Internet that should be plenty fast for good Netflix performance. It is probably a similar situation with your phone company.

As the original post said, it will "bypass" the web. Basically, there will be capacity over the wire dedicated to the service, not just over the last mile cable lines (what they call a "specialized service") but also between Apple and Comcast's networks.

I'm still not following. I thought it was the last mile that counts, because that's where the big expense is -- in running a wire or cable to each of millions of subscribers' homes. Right now, both my cable company and my phone company have optical fiber to my neighborhood. Plenty of capacity to get close to me, but not all the way to me. No one wants to pay for fiber to my house. In metropolitan Honolulu, I understand, subscribers can get optical fiber to their residences, and there is a housing development on the Big Island that has fiber to people's homes. Those are special cases.
I don't see what good it does me if Apple and Comcast have a private large capacity data link between the two of them.

Apple TV seems to offer a suite of services, so you buy the whole thing at once, not a la carte, as you (and I) would want. Comcast doesn't allow much a la carte either (Premium services are, but in addition to the rest).

Some services, like HBO Go require an existing HBO subscription from somewhere, I would expect.

As for sports, the NFL is locked up by the networks or DirecTV, Soccer by several services, most aggressively by NBC / Espn, You have the NBA also locked down for years and the same for Formula One, NASCAR, etc.

Soccer, as an example is being aggressively streamed by NBC - for them the best thing would be to bypass the cable services entirely and offer it to the highest bidders when its cable arrangements are done.

The Apple TV device is 99, but the chromecast device is 35, the new Roku stick will hit around that, so the competition is coming in at a third of the price, and a much smaller form factor.

The GUI may be great, but it seems a step behind technically. In this configuration, it would also lock you in to Comcast and Apple.

Wireless streaming sticks are no solution, reliable streaming needs a wired ethernet connection. Apple and Roku boxes can do this. Roku didn't do very well with their previous streaming stick and there will bunches of Chromecasts gathering dust in time.

Wireless streaming sticks are no solution, reliable streaming needs a wired ethernet connection. Apple and Roku boxes can do this. Roku didn't do very well with their previous streaming stick and there will bunches of Chromecasts gathering dust in time.

For some reason that has not been my experience. My N900 WiFi actually works better than the wired connection I used to use, I've even captured 1080p webcasts over Skype without any glitches.

Wireless streaming sticks are no solution, reliable streaming needs a wired ethernet connection. Apple and Roku boxes can do this. Roku didn't do very well with their previous streaming stick and there will bunches of Chromecasts gathering dust in time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by imagic

For some reason that has not been my experience. My N900 WiFi actually works better than the wired connection I used to use, I've even captured 1080p webcasts over Skype without any glitches.

Hasn't been mine either. At least not now - I have a Vizio 24 inch TV in the bedroom that streams Netflix and Amazon with impunity.

Nice performance, no problem with macroblocking, stuttering or sound issues, which I do get on my Comcast service periodically. I also stream Pandora using an Oppo, and music (MP3, FLAC) from my NAS.

The solution, I think -(and why I am including a good wireless router now as a necessity for a good AV system when asked to recommend what is important), is to treat your network, both wired and wireless as a valuable AV component. I stream a lot of content - both from providers like netflix and from content I have bought (MP3's, FLAC, etc) that it is important it perform well. I also run a DLNA server from my Android phone to my systems, so wireless to the router to wireless to the AV system. Very smooth for me.

So having a wireless link is no problem for me, they are all over my house. I still prefer to connect things by wire if possible, but at the bandwidth that AV stuff requires, it is overkill IMO.

So I don't see any of these gathering dust. Some will succeed and some not, probably due to content or business practices, but in a world where my daughter routinely watches movies on her cell phone without a complaint, the world is moving on.

^ That makes about as much sense as the Roku CEO saying today "Apple TV is essentially an accessory for the iPad. They lose money, which is unusual for Apple," he said Thursday, speaking at the Recode conference here. "If you're losing money, why would you want to sell more?"

Just makes you feel a whole lot better about Roku's future doesn't it!

^ That makes about as much sense as the Roku CEO saying today "Apple TV is essentially an accessory for the iPad. They lose money, which is unusual for Apple," he said Thursday, speaking at the Recode conference here. "If you're losing money, why would you want to sell more?"

Just makes you feel a whole lot better about Roku's future doesn't it!

Ink Jet printers are also a very low to no profit margin device. They get you on the ink though. They could give away Apple TVs and still make money hand over fist on their proprietary format content.

I wouldn't buy any Apple product. They are a closed system. Eg. All cell phone mfrs. agreed on a standard for charging - micro usb. Apple refused - figuring they could make more $ by selling their own type of plug. They then made their own users trash those when they came out with the latest Apple phone with a different type of connection!
I can't see Apple giving up any control over anything to anyone - incl. Comcast.

MS did the same thing - probably for too long with MS Word and Excel. They finally are coming out w. a version for Apple tablets to be followed by Android tablets. In the meantime, users have found other programs that might even work better for them and they won't have to pay the $100/yr. MS will be charging for their programs!